I'm a staff writer at Forbes, where until recently I chased the super-rich for our Forbes 400 and World's Billionaires lists. Now I'm covering the consumer economy, writing about the big personalities reinventing retail. Before Forbes, I worked as a news reporter in the UK and my home country of Bermuda, a travel writer for Frommer's and an intern for CNN's Anderson Cooper while completing a master's degree at Columbia University. Got a story idea? Email me at coconnor@forbes.com.

While a handful of these emails have been of the “Will Sara marry me?” variety (for the record: no), the vast majority have expressed amazement that Blakely, 41, grew her undergarment empire without any outside investment, debt, or even a cent spent on traditional advertising: no magazine spends, no TV spots, no billboard buys.

When I spent some time with Blakely in Atlanta a few months back, she and company CEO Laurie Ann Goldman told me how Spanx grew from a one-product wonder to a household name without shelling out on ads:

1. Word of mouth worked better.

When Blakely was still selling Spanx out of her Decatur, Ga. apartment in white Office Depot envelopes, advertising wasn’t a priority, namely because there was no way she could afford it. When she started Spanx in her twenties, word of mouth wasn’t so much a strategy as a necessity. But today, even with the brand’s incredible success, Goldman insists the company still won’t advertise, even though they could now afford every billboard in Times Square.

“We’ve been self-funded from the beginning,” Goldman said. “We had to spend money only on things that make money and advertising was esoteric. You couldn’t really measure the return you were going to get so we didn’t do it. The power of women discovering the brand from other women was actually a better strategy. The aunt telling her niece; one woman to a college friend. There’s something about saying, ‘look, feel my back, no lines’ that’s powerful. Look at how big social media has become now. People trust advice.”

In the New York flagship Bloomingdale’s on 59th Street, Spanx has an “in-store shop”, as they call it: a store within a store, all very on-message with the company’s trademark bright pinks and reds and candy jars and lava lamps. The brand’s reliance on word of mouth and woman-to-woman advice is evident in just a few minutes browsing the racks. A twentysomething student stops in because she admired a friend’s smooth derriere at yoga class in the brand’s $118 ‘Power Pants’. An older lady with a Margaret Thatcher bouffant has been sent by her daughter to try the footless pantyhouse, Spanx’s first ever product, still a hit almost 12 years on.

2. Their packaging did the talking.

In Spanx’s early days — and today, to a lesser extent — the brand’s cherry-red, cartoon-adorned packaging was crucial in setting the brand apart from its competitors in the beige hinterland of the lingerie floor, where bored-looking women gaze out from a neutral-colored pantyhose packet, maybe stroking a leg. Blakely knew early on that, without advertising, she needed to attract attention on the racks themselves. Blakely cut out eyes, noses and ears from magazines, figuring out how she’d like her cartoon alter ego to look. Today, blonde, pony-tailed Sunny is still the brand’s ‘mascot’, although she’d had a few makeovers since 2000.

Blakely also abhorred the way she felt lingerie companies talked down to women in their marketing. “I literally was writing things on the packaging how I’d tell a girlfriend,” she said. “It wasn’t saying, ‘it’s the sheerest of the sheerest most sheer elegance.’ Just, ‘it makes your butt look better.’”

Spanx products are all given cutesy, wink-wink names like Bra-llelujah and Tight-End Tights. And Blakely was sure not to waste any of the packaging’s excess material. Each cardboard insert is a comic strip, “like in Bazooka bubblegum”, Blakely says — partly an outlet for her stand-up comedy, one of many pre-Spanx gigs, and partly to encourage women to collect ‘em all. One insert for bridal shapewear shows the bride-to-be trying to contain her rear end in a wedding dress. Says the caption: “When you think everyone’s looking at your train but they’re really looking at your caboose.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Woo, go Forbes :) I was reading about Kate Upton on here just last week, I believe.

As a lover of radiant, beautiful, confident women *and* thriving, impactful entrepreneurial endeavors, I have to say — this was a fantastic read for me.

It’s eye-opening and after my own heart.

Where most people are borrowing money from investors on something of a gamble, Sara just put out her quality product, and allowed the market to support her. Word of mouth and a quality offering/brand did the trick.

No advertising at all?! So Dillard’s at Atlantic Station airs Spanx infomercials in-store free of charge? Clare, please do fact check!

For the record, I tried two types of Spanex as a result of media impressions (hearing about the product through various touch points including Oprah and that pretty lengthy infomercial at Dillard’s). Succumbed to Spanx given the preference for hosiery that would likely last longer than the $2.19 brands I’ve purchased in an SOS situation, but developed a run instantly or the $5 brands I normally purchase that I can wash on gentle cycle and air dry repeatedly for two-three months before even getting a run. The outcome?

The footless shaper lasted longer than expected. I was intentionally hard on this $26 number, but only because I got them for the mega-markdown price of $4 on merchandise clearance at my favorite discount retailer. When the footless did begin to fall apart, it unraveled at the calves where I often lost feeling in my leg any way. I use to have to tug them down to allow my blood to circulate. The pair of uptown tight-ends that retail for $42 I got for $35, but as a result of a store closing. Apparently, they NEVER go on sale in the retail stores. I was actually excited about and was especially gentle with these ultra expensive micro fishnets. In less wears (about four) than a $12 pair off brand micro fishnets I bought from Dillard’s over a year ago, this morning, those $42 Spanx manifested two holes in the left sole without any agitation! Perhaps it was the high quality fibers that I paid for that prevented a run from going all the way up my leg (?). I’m all for body shapers. However, unless hosiery is durable, i.e., last more than four wears, then don’t mark them up to the penthouse just so that Oprah and friends can get a generous supply on a weekly basis for free!

1. Interestingly enough, I noticed the Spanx AdSense ads on Forbes.com as well as TMZ.com within 24 hours of posting my comment…

2. Great for Sara if the cost of airing in-store “TV clips” in Dillard’s is covered else wise. No matter how one flips the equation, someone is still spending money for advertising (traditional or not). I would bet the cost for the TV console and licensing or airing the clips are recouped or literally “factored in” on the back end by Dillard’s, passed on to consumers, or even sponsored by the featured TV broadcasts, otherwise neither Dillard’s nor Sara would be raking in dough!

3. My reference to media impressions was specifically related to what compelled me to test the Spanx product–not that media impressions are ads. Due to a constant barrage of attention-getting gimmicks, to consumers, a media mention or product placement of any type now = “promoting a product”. Can’t even go to the bathroom or a movie without brands literally, flashing their wares in front of your face.

4. I “get” having a catchy article title to draw readers in. However, having a catchy title does not eliminate the need for accurate reporting within the article by a journalist or the editors of a prominent business publication. Ensuring that the angle or “spin”, as jwpolichak said, is accurate is essential—at least that’s what I came to expect from a media heavyweight like Forbes.

5. To sensationalize a story by implying an absolute through omission IS lying. Bigger than you thinking that readers are making a big deal out of nothing is duping would be entrepreneurs, who are just learning the process, into thinking what you said Sara did is a special feat (grassroots and word-of-mouth marketing has been a champion for a number of billionaires—namely those in social media). Worse, is duping consumers into buying a pricey product that has flaws (hence my testimonial up top).

6. Surely, adding the word traditional in front of advertising within the article to begin with, instead of berating readers who noted the correction, would avert conflict. Adding traditional to the title would have kept you, the journalist and Forbes, honest.

7. I saw Forbes as a reputable media authority for business owners and leaders. However, given their apparent support of inaccurate, or maybe just sensational, reporting by a condescending journalist who resorts to name calling like a now notorious member of the media, I no longer trust the Forbes brand and now have reason to scrutinize advertisements and brands promoted through its media mentions.

8. You are correct, Forbes has no incentive to delete or even correct the spin of a cover story or a blog– not when between them Forbes has “garnered 600k+ views and [Sara] secured appearances on every morning show, not to mention garnered Sara a spot as Diane Sawyer’s Person of the Week”. Unlike Sara, Forbes actually spends money on traditional advertisement…Pedantic readers like me use to respond to Forbes’ direct mail subscription advertisements. Not anymore!

“Being young, energetic and beautiful never hurt either when it comes to shifting a product without spending a penny”.

A gross overstatement and very misleading to say that not a penny was spent. Even if bartering minimized the expense of promoting her product, Blakely certainly “spent” something to “advertise” or increase product awareness. Packaging design, marketing copy for packaging, postage, event travels, and product placement, are expenses mentioned in this article. Contrary to popular opinion, word-of-mouth on the Spanx level (courting “A-List” celebrities with regular supplies of product samples) isn’t “free” – not when retail prices for Spanx are $26, $28, or even $42 a pair.

More accurately said, even though no money spent specifically on print, TV, radio, or outdoor ads, for example, money certainly spent on marketing by way of PR and direct mail product samples to stylists and other tastemakers. Having a unique product, wrapped in appealing packaging that meets a need is essential to the marketing equation (four Ps: product, price, placement, and promotion). Blakely did an excellent job of balancing all four.

Be it grassroots or sponsored—building awareness is mandatory for increased sales of goods and services and, subsequently, business success. Blakely is to be commended for going at the process, “without any outside investment, debt, or even [spending money on traditional] advertising”—steps normally taken by her retail counterparts and other aspiring entrepreneurs.

“We’ve sent Spanx to everybody on the planet,” said Goldman. “We always had PR and grassroots marketing at the forefront of what we did. It was getting the word out any way we could: speaking engagements, sampling. With our diffusion line Assets, we went to the Country Music Awards and handed it out…

A full-time team of four at Spanx’s Atlanta HQ works to make sure high-profile fans like curvy reality star Kim Kardashian and celebrity stylist Rachel Zoe have enough of each product to get through the week. “We’ve got to get Ms Winfrey her Spanx,” said Maggie Adams Klein, head of the comms team. They also liaise with the wardrobe department for TV shows like 30 Rock (Tina Fey is a professed Spanx wearer) and Gossip Girl. Their promotional efforts came full circle last fall: Spanx started helping the costumer on an upcoming Gwyneth Paltrow film.

Since when is this not advertising? Giving away free samples to influential people is one of the basics of advertising since Mighty OG! endorsed Gugr’s Dinosaur-Conking Club? Same with free samples to the hoi-polloi.

They have a team devoted to this. They call it marketing. The title to this article is totally inaccurate. And obvious enough that it is really hard to believe it wasn’t intentional.

I know you all compete based on views, but there’s a point where a catchy spin becomes a lie.

PR and grassroots marketing ≠ advertising! Sending gift baskets of a product to celebrities in hopes they’ll mention it is FAR cheaper than, say, paying for a TV spot during the Oscars. Ok, to be clear, they have never spent a cent on traditional print/TV/web/radio advertising. Happy?